The purpose of this essay is not to demonstrate "Darwinian" evolution, since the writer would be accomplishing a feat already done by others, but to examine a certain path of thought among supporters of Creation. In particular, they note some improbabilities in evolution's ability to "design." I will avoid defining individual concepts because they have all been described before, and much better than I could, although I will point out that the micro/macro evolution distinction is largely creationist jargon, as is the "gentile" terminology. Throughout the text I will refer to evolutionary theory/macroevolution as “evolution” and creation/intelligent design as “creation,” and to proponents of each as “evolutionists” and “creationists,” respectively. If one of these offends both parties, suck it up. Note also that creation is a largely moving target, so characterizing their views is difficult if not impossible since it is subject to change, unlike evolutionary theory, where many of the original principles established by Charles Darwin still exist, even though some have certainly changed. I do not claim to be an expert in the myriad fields of expertise needed to adequately defend evolutionary theory. Nor do I have degrees in any of the relevant fields. Many proponents of evolution or creation have no problem arguing across a broad spectrum of expertise. It is common to see theology graduates discussing astrophysics and vice versa. Those who are tactful build their arguments based on references to the writings of people with such experience. Since I have not seen the topic I wish to present in any reference material, I do not have this luxury. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Creationists often present some extreme adaptations such as... middle of paper... saying that several modern species of animals sport ferocious teeth and yet are vegetarian. Another article that I find enlightening is an article from Answers In Genesis which states that the South American Pirahna ate vegetation. We find these statements so at odds with mainstream science that it is difficult to reconcile them, especially if one has a partial reading of Genesis. So, to overcome this impasse, let's look to genetics to find concrete and quick answers. This is where the layman goes away, grabs a sandwich and watches some television. If a creationist and an evolutionist sequenced the DNA of something, they would both arrive at a genetically identical value, except for any laboratory problems which are negligible. This is a useful synergy of facts, since in many other fields, such as archeology and morphology, an interpretative prejudice can be asserted..